The intragenically and transgenically modified products had increased levels of antioxidants and vitamin C.

"The basic idea is that when consumers saw that the intragenic produce had elevated healthful attributes, they were willing to pay more for them," said Huffman.

Consumers were not willing to pay more if those enhancements were introduced through transgenic methods, he added.

Participants were also given information - positive, negative and neutral, and in combination - on genetic modification from scientific, human, financial, environmental and general perspectives.

The positive information on the food was given from the point of view of the food industry. The negative information was presented from the perspective of environmental groups. The neutral information was given as from the scientific community. The industry and neutral perspectives contained definitions of intragenic and transgenic modifications.

Huffman said that information from the food industry was usually given more weight by consumers than the information presented by environmental groups. The neutral information moderated the negative effect of environmental group information.

Why do we need to have genetically engineered food? To feed the masses? We have had GMOs for over 20 years, and there are still the starving in the world, so that has not been stopped. Are GMOs, or any crops for that matter, more nutritious? No. As a matter of fact, vegetables that are found in the supermarkets today are less nutritious than those that were available in the 1950s.

Consumers will pay 25% more for GMO food? Not likely. As a consumer, there is nothing indicating any safety of these products. Another, recent study by the Center for Food Safety found that 85% of consumers do not even want GMOs. A bit of difference there.

What are GMOs good for? Profits of the seed company. And, with it's associated Intellectual Property policies, this GMO technology self-propagates onto neighboring farms, which, if they are not a licensed GMO-farm, get sued out of business.

GMOs have never been adequately tested for long term safety. Short-term effects have been evaluated by the producing company, but what's a little conflict of interest, right? Any third-party studies are hard to conduct, and researchers are shunned if results were found to be non-positive. Certain seed companies have former executives working in key positions within the USDA (enter US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, former lawyer of Monsanto) to help any matters of permitting along. Of course it's safe.....

In my view, the use of GMOs on the population represents a nationwide, if not world-wide, uncontrolled biological and physiological experiment. What are the long-term effects of these foods on human health. If something does appear, how can a particular crop be assigned blame, legally? How would a doctor even recognise that this was caused by a GMO? No one knows and no one can. What a great product. Any they have all of the farmers neatly wrapped in their wallets.

I eat locally, and I know what I am eating, which is a right no one should lose.

That's only because they have believed the hype & mendacious propaganda and have not researched the subject to inform themselves and therefore are oblivious of the real dangers and damages to health that GMO foods actually represent. http://tinyurl.com/63gd4uj

Well, no one asked the beekeepers what they thought, and there's a reason for that. Anyone who thinks Monsanto is in it for consumer nutrition and health is nuts. It's all about the bucks for them, otherwise they'd be paying more attention to the longterm consequences (or at least be doing honest research on the risks of) transgenic pollen to bees.

The cost of your food is directly related to the cost of producing it. If you take technological tools (or any other tools) away from farmers you inevitably reduce their competitiveness and increase their costs which increase the consumers cost. I farm with these products, my family and I consume these products, with no ill effects.

Consider high productivity a way to avoid deforestation. Highly productive agriculture in the US can displace two to five acres in underdeveloped countries for every one of ours. We have developed and maintained the critical infrastructure necessary to bring food to the world with much less risk to the environment. I welcome any of you to visit our family farm in California so that you may see for yourself. Large companies like Monsanto are being demonized.

What kind of GMO are you growing, harvesting and eating in California? Very curious. Wonderful how your family is having no ill effects. Do you have good insurance? Do you get regular check ups? How is your digestive function? Your bowel momvements? is any one in your family one of the 63 million who suffer from chronic constipation; or one of the 15 million with IBS; or one of the 18 million with GERD? How is you families energy level? Do your children suffer from an autism spectrum disorder or some form of ADD? Does anyone have suffer from constant foggy headedness ranging to full blown depression? I am truly curious. Most people do not correlate minor health or behavioral conditions to a diet that simply is not good for their constitution.

I'd love to visit your family farm in California that grows, harvests and eats its very own transgenically modified corn, soy, alfalfa and what ever other goodies you place on your family table! I'll bring digestive enzymes and pro-biotics.

You gotta be kidding me. This is an ad paid for by the GMO industry. If it's so desired by the public why don't they say on the label that it's a GM product. They (the GMO companies) have fought tooth and nail to keep the fact, that their GMO crap is in the product, off the label because almost no one would buy it if it was identified as such. This is another case of large corporations twisting science to enhance their bottom line. It's all about the money. They will say and do anything to get more money. It's deplorable that they enslave farmers in other countries by telling them lies about their products and promising them results that are totally wrong. I will never knowingly eat anything GMO.

I grow organically and after having studied the health effects of GMO seeds will not eat any GMO food. Farmers who grow GMO corn, and other foods for human or animal consumption, are unlearned, greedy, ignorant and/or evil. This is why the GMO industry is deathly afraid of labeling GMO foods, including GMO pineapple, GMO papaya as no one would buy them. Sorry Pravadapress the word is out. GMO sucks! The horrid health effects in cows from GMO corn are well documented. That is why Monsanto your advertiser makes farmers assume the liability for the damage their seed does. Americans unite for healthy food. No GMO in the USA like No GMO in Europe. Wake up America!

To all concerned citizens (especially in the U.S):
Please connect to local campaigns that celebrate seeds and biodiversity and contribute your energy towards a global movement focused on raising knowledge and creating a culture that values the rights of ALL Life.http://www.navdanya.org/campaignshttp://www.organicconsumers.org/

AND please read articles like this carefully that you can identify the slight of hand. INTRAGENIC and TRANSGENIC are different uses of gmo technology. This study focused on INTRAgenic: meaning snake venom DNA is not used to create pesticide activity in an orange, and this makes the gmo SEEM more appealing to consumers. The study doesn't just smell fishy, it is transparently fishy. This illuminates why the 'negative' environmental concerns with TRANSgenic gmos most likely used in the study would seem less valid. Still required for any gmo are viral and bacterial technologies that violate protective genetic membranes as well as the use of antibacterial resistant traits. Not such a cool thing to let into the wild, or our bodies. KEEP EDUCATING YOURSELVES AND SHARE OTHERS!!!

Contrary to the hysteria of the person posting the numerous antiGMO comments, where is the evidence of harm? None. The USA is very litigious, and guess what? No lawsuits showing harm! If you are a thoughtful person who cares to understand the GMO issue, read what The National Academy of Sciences says about GMOs: safe. Einstein was a member and so are the brightest scientists in iur country. Don 't listen to misrepresentations, go to the source. Here is the link:http://www.nationalacademies.org/webextra/crops/

It might interest a reasonable person to read what the Royal Society has to say about GMOs: safe. Who cares what the Organic Consumers Asso. says, we ready know they say "keep buying our organic products"! Read the link to the Royal Society statement: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/6/290.full